fs_list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'lists' but does not disclose whether hidden files are included, whether recursion occurs, or if there are any side effects. The minimal description fails to convey important behavioral traits beyond the basic operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at six words, with no wasted language. It is front-loaded and perfectly sized for its simplicity. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and is relatively simple, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks context about which directory is listed, output format, and behavior like sorting or filtering. For a trivial tool, this is minimally acceptable but not comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has no parameters (0 parameters, 100% schema coverage), so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per guidelines, baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no additional meaning but is not necessary.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool lists files and folders, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not specify which local directory is used, leaving ambiguity. It distinguishes from siblings like fs_read and fs_search but lacks specificity about the scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fs_search or finder_list. The description gives no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.